BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 57 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 05.03.2021.
Date of Decision : 15.05.2023.
Ram Murti aged about 72 years sonof Shri Ganga Bishan, resident of village Shahpuria, Tehsil Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. The Branch Manager, The Primary Agri. Co. Op Society Nathusari Chopta, District Sirsa.
2. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Cabin No.7, 3rd Floor, Agro Mall, Sector 20, Panchkula- 134117 through their authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Surender Sihag, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Nihal Singh, Branch Manager for opposite party No.1.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist having land measuring 74 kanals 18 marlas out of total land measuring 223 kanals 18 marlas comprised in Khewat no. 164 to 165, Khatuni No. 273 to 275 situated in village Shahpuria, District Sirsa. The complainant has availed crop loan facility from op no.1 and used to sow the crops of cotton in kharif season. That complainant was interested to get his cotton crops insured under the Pardhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna. It is further averred that accordingly on 10.07.2019 premium amount of Rs.5580/- was deducted by op no.1 from his account No. 110215 for insuring his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019 with op no.2. That cotton crop of complainant and other villagers during Kharif, 2019 was damaged due to natural calamities, pests/ diseases and other farmers have already received claim amount in July, 2020 but complainant did not receive any claim amount. The complainant approached op no.1 to get his claim but the officials of op no.1 after checking the record informed him that due to clerical mistake address of complainant has been wrongly mentioned as village Tarkanwali instead of village Shahpuria which is clear cut fault of the bank authorities and similarly op no.2 also committed gross negligence and deficiency in service by accepting the documents supplied by op no.1 without verification and due to and conduct of the ops, the complainant has been deprived of the benefits of the crop insurance policy without his fault. That complainant requested the ops to release the claim amount but to no effect. Hence, this complaint seeking claim amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for the damage of his cotton crop besides compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
3. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement submitting therein that it is the op no.2 who is responsible for the compensation and op no.1 is not at all responsible for the same. That only responsibility assigned to the answering op by the Government was to deduct the amount of premium from the account of the farmers and to deposit the same with the op no.2 and nothing more than that was to be done by op no.1. The answering op has performed its statutory duties by deducting the amount of premium from the account of complainant and by depositing the same with op no.2. It is further submitted that before correction of address of the complainant, no claim amount can be released to the complainant. The complainant was requested by the answering op a number of times to get his address corrected for indemnification of his claim but it is the complainant himself who is not at all cooperative towards the answering op. It is further submitted that there is no fault on the part of answering op and answering op is ready and willing to get the necessary corrections made, if any regarding the address of the complainant if he cooperates. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Op no.2 also filed written version submitting therein that present case pertains to PMFBY implemented during Kharif 2019 season in Haryana. The complainant farmer was covered as a loanee farmer through Sirsa Central Co. Op. Bank Branch Nathusari Kalan and State Bank of India Branch Nathusari Chopta. That complainant farmer has not mentioned NCI portal application number as well as farmer ID number in the complaint due to malafide intentions. The same are required to ascertain their crop insurance coverage and complainant is required to furnish all relevant and correct particulars in the complaint with regard to crop insurance coverage. It is further submitted that complainant farmer has also concealed the details of his insured cotton crop of village Shahpuria (12) Block Nathusari Chopta in which the answering op company has already paid the area approach claim of Rs.1,01,918.69 on 09.06.2020 to the complainant farmer for Kharif 2019 season under PMFBY. That the claims are payable as per the provisions of PMFBY and State Govt. notification. It is further submitted that two NCIP- IDS for coverage of crops during Kharif 2019 under PMFBY of the farmer has been found. On the basis of account number and bank branch name mentioned in the complaint, it is found that the complainant is a loanee farmer whose notified cotton crop was compulsorily insured by his bank branch by uploading his coverage details in the NCI Portal of Govt. of India. It is further submitted that as there was no shortfall in the actual yield for insured cotton crop of complainant in the village Tarkanwali during the Kharif 2019 season, therefore, no area approach claims became payable. Further, with respect to area approach claims based on CCEs, as there was shortfall in the actual yield for insured cotton crop of the village Shahpuria (12) Block Nathusari Chopta during Kharif 2019 season, therefore, area approach claim during season Kharif 2019 is already paid to the complainant farmer on 09.06.2020 with area approach claim of Rs.1,01,918.69 as per PMFBY scheme provisions. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex. C1/A and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5.
6. On the other hand, op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Jaspal Singh Khurmi as Ex.R1 and copies of documents Ex. R2 to Ex.R14. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Nihal Singh, Branch Manager as Ex.R15.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
8. The complainant claims insurance claim amount for the damage of his cotton crop sown in 74 kanals 18 marlas land situated in village Shahpuria, District Sirsa. According to the complainant he is having 74 kanals 18 marlas land in village Shahpuria but due to mistake on the part of op no.1 his land was shown in village Tarkan Wali and so he could not get insurance claim despite the fact that amount of Rs.5580/- was deducted as premium amount for insurance of his cotton crop of Kharif, 2019. From the document placed on file by op no.2 insurance company as insurance particulars Ex.R8, it is evident an amount of Rs.3672.47 was paid to op no.2 for insurance of cotton crop of complainant in 2.39 hectare of land situated in village Shahpuria and premium amount of Rs.5580/- was paid to op no.2 for insurance of cotton crop of complainant in 3.64 hectare of land situated in village Tarkanwali. In this regard op no.1 bank has asserted that complainant was requested by it a number of times to get his address corrected for indemnification of his claim but complainant did not get corrected the said mistake. The document Ex.R8 reveals that insurance claim amount of Rs.1,01,918.69 has already been paid to the complainant for damage of his cotton crop in 2.39 hectare of land situated in village Shahpuria. Further from khasra girdawari placed on file by complainant as Ex.C3, it is evident that complainant had sown cotton crop in 42 Kanals 20 marlas of land i.e. in 2.39 hectare of land in Kharif, 2019 for which claim amount has already been paid to the complainant and in remaining land he had sown other crops in Kharif, 2019 season and as such complainant is not entitled to any other amount when he had sown cotton crop in 2.39 hectare of land for which claim amount has already been paid to the complainant.
9. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President
Dt. 15.05.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
